So here we are in the midst of arguably the biggest financial and economic crisis in a lifetime, and just when most people would probably argue that we need more public discussion and debate, McCain wants to postpone the presidential debate, so he can focus on the economy, or so he says.

On the surface these seem like reasonable things to say. But what’s the political result?

We don’t get to watch the candidates debate each other head-to-head. Argubly Obama has a real advantage in a live debate, being cool-headed, articulate, and a charismatic speaker. (All real talk of the issues aside: after all we know most Americans don’t vote on issues, but instead vote on image, persona, and any of a number of other personal factors that have nothing to do with governing.)

McCain gets to appear as though he’s taking the high-road and doing “real” work on the crisis.

McCain’s campaign and proxies get to slam Obama for inaction on the crisis while he goes on campaigning for the Presidency. Moreover they get to replay the cult-of-personality critique they used so effectively during the RNC.

McCain gets to get out of the public eye a bit. After all he can’t draw a crowd all that well without Palin there anyway.

Palin gets to continue to stay out front where the McCain campaign wants her, saying all the harshly critical things she’s been saying about Obama ever since her nomination.

The right-wing underground or non-MSM-press and blogs get to continue to imply that Obama is where he is because of some misguided Affirmative-Action-like, white, left-wing guilt complex.

Then what happens when we get back around to a rain-check on the debates? Well, after a couple weeks of bashing Obama for not taking the economy as seriously as McCain, they have a debate, Obama trounces McCain (as expected), and McCain gets to say, “Well, where were you, Barak? I for one was busy fixing the economy and making sure everyone didn’t get foreclosed on their homes, while you were practicing in the mirror for the debate. [To Wolf Blitzer] Don’t blame me if he’s a better actor than I am. After all, he’s just like Brittney, right?”

I was just having a quick scan through my RSS feeds, and ran across this post on the blog for Bill Moyers Journal, under which is one of the best written comments I’ve seen, in support of bloging’s positive influence on the mainstream media. daldude writes:

“Based on what I’ve read in these comments and elsewhere, the primary concern regarding blogs seems to be that of accountability. It’s certainly a valid issue, but when we have reporters for the NYT fabricating stories for years without discovery, primetime mainstream pundits like O’Reilly and Hannity saying whatever they please without regard for facts, 24-hour cable rumor mills, video news releases, ‘anonymous government sources’, and of course, the whole fiasco of media complicity in the build up to the Iraq War, it seems like the traditional journalism pot calling the kettle blog a dark color…

“… I have to cast a suspicious eye on those who lament the decline of this bulwark of elitism [mainstream media]; who seem to feel that we poor common folk cannot be trusted to discern the facts on our own, and must be shepherded by credentialed professionals. To me, it is these very qualifications that that call the shepherds’ motives into question — ‘credentialed’ means they’ve been screened and approved by the status quo establishment, and ‘professional’ means they are financially dependent on (and thus subservient to) their corporate bosses. Any confidence in the system of self-imposed ‘quality control’ amongst these professionals seems wholly unfounded and dangerously naive at this point.”

I’m pretty sure that liberals and conservatives alike can agree with much of what daldude has to say above. What do you think?